Climate Change Reporting Has Skyrocketed, But Those Covering It Say It’s Not Enough

Originally written for the University of Amsterdam and published on Medium.

In recent months, the 2024 Presidential Election, Boeing safety concerns, inflation, US Supreme Court, Israel-Hamas war, and former President Donald Trump’s legal battles have dominated the news cycle.

While these issues may widely be considered news “fit to print”, former broadcast meteorologist Chris Gloninger has labeled the extensive attention as “bad journalism.” To him, there is one topic that is missing that front page coverage as it continues to impact Americans in nearly every facet of life: climate change.

“The fact that we’re covering this circus in court every day and the next thing that Donald Trump says, is a waste of resources,” Gloninger said.

Gloninger, who worked as a meteorologist for nearly 20 years covering climate change primarily in the Northeast, is calling for a restructuring of how journalists give attention to the issue — no matter what beat they cover. Instead of being covered periodically — often as a scientific or environmentally heavy feature — climate change should be making headlines daily.

“They need to make time for it in this crazy news cycle, which they’re just not. And that’s local news, that’s national news, ” Gloninger said. “I just kind of, like, scream at the TV when I’m listening to everything and anything else that they’re covering, and when they shouldn’t really be covering that.”

Research has found that the news media, including meteorologists, carry a great deal of influence when it comes to shaping belief about climate change. Other studies have indicated that by increasing belief and concern regarding the issue, individuals may be more likely to embrace initiative behaviors looking to curb the effects of climate change. This makes coverage of the issue all the more important.

Meteorologists (left to right) Jeff Berardelli, Lauren Casey, and Chris Gloninger share their opinions on how climate change reporting has evolved and where it should be today

WIDESPREAD IMPACT

For decades, coverage of climate change has been pigeon-holed to the science section of the newspaper, often only making an appearance on the front page when connected to national or global politics or mass fatalities caused by extreme weather.

This categorization may make sense for some, as climate change is regularly discussed as a data-driven topic, with stories filled with statistics, comments from scientists, and graphs explaining changes in temperatures or other weather anomalies.

However, climate change is not just a scientific issue with experts pointing to a direct impact it appears to have on daily lives.

In the lower 48, the 2023/2024 winter was found to be the warmest on record, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Shockingly high temperatures resulted in near-record-low snowfalls, intense flooding, increased rainfall and shorter lake freezes.

The 2024 summer has also already seen record-breaking heatwaves, putting millions of Americans at risk. These temperature anomalies are being recorded across the country, with dozens of major cities like New York, Washington D.C. Phoenix, Chicago, and Portland seeing temperatures several degrees higher than what is considered to be normal.

Source: Climate Central

Scientists agree that these major weather changes are being driven by climate change. The effects are becoming more frequent and intense, largely due to humans’ negative contribution to the warming atmosphere.

Not only do these effects of climate change have greater impacts on human life and wildlife in the US, but it negatively impacts areas that financially rely on winter tourism for skiing, ice fishing, skating, and more.

It doesn’t stop there. Hundreds of athletes worldwide have pointed to rising temperatures and increased air pollution having a direct negative impact on their health and performance. In many parts of the US, public buildings such as schools and libraries were built to withstand cooler temperatures without air cooling systems. Now, record-breaking heat has forced dozens of schools to close to protect students and staff.

Jeff Berardelli, the Chief Meteorologist and Climate Specialist for NBC affiliate WFLA, emphasized that coverage of climate change is vitally important for Americans today, as the effects of climate change are only expected to get worse.

“Everything’s gonna get tougher, and eventually it’s going to lead to a lot of instability and probably a lot of conflict,” Berardelli said. “This is why climate change is so dangerous. It’s not the one storm. It’s not the one heatwave, it’s how it’s all going to come together to make life really challenging.”

Experts with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have warned that excessive energy use, land-use, individual waste, as well as increased consumption of mass produced products and the transportation needed to supply these goods are contributing to increased emissions of greenhouse gasses.

“We are witnessing what is by far the fastest changing climate that we’ve seen potentially in millions of years, and that it’s being done by us,” Berardelli siad. “The changes are fairly extraordinary and every year that goes by, it’s proven to be even probably more impactful than we thought it would be.”

CHANGING COVERAGE

While many meteorologists are unhappy with the way climate change is covered today, it is dramatically different from the coverage that existed in the early 2000s — if any.

Berardelli, who has worked in meteorology for over 27 years, revealed that there was very little coverage or even discussion about climate change within the field at the time. Those who studied meteorology were exposed to information about the issue including studying warming temperatures in college, confirming climate change was real. However, Berardelli said there wasn’t much data meteorologists could use easily in their reports.

“There wasn’t much of anything going on back then,” he said, explaining that now, most media organizations have scientists who are able to produce detailed graphs and illustrations breaking down confusing information.

“Back then, it was just polar bears on ice,” Berardelli said.

Lauren Casey, an Emmy-award winning meteorologist, started working in broadcast in 2006. She agreed that in the early 2000s, not many people — meteorologists and other journalists alike — were covering climate change.

“Climate wasn’t even really a topic at all that people were talking about in the media back then,” she said. “And then it started to slowly build up.”

Casey didn’t attribute one specific moment for the surge in climate change coverage, instead calling it a “slow build.”

She pointed to a number of factors including public perception. As viewers and readers became more open to discussing and hearing about climate change, Casey said media organizations followed suit.

Previously, these organizations, both local and national, tended to steer away from contentious topics like climate change due to negative feedback targeting the journalists or networks themselves. Gloninger claimed that by doing this, networks were catering to small percentages of the population that have long wanted nothing to do with climate change, often failing to believe in its existence.

“I think it’s crazy to cater newcasts to that small minority,” he said. “You lose your journalistic integrity, and honestly, that’s journalistic malpractice when you’re allowing an audience to dictate what shouldn’t be covered.”

The 2016 Presidential Election gave this minority a larger voice, Gloninger explained, as Trump ascended to office and perpetuated skepticism on clean energy initiatives while repeatedly calling climate change a “hoax.”

Like other social issues like education and abortion, experts agree the polarization and politicization of climate change escalated during the election and rise of misinformation. With distrust becoming more apparent, meteorologists and environmentalists began pushing back.

“During the Trump administration, because there was so much pushback against environmental regulations and climate communication, I think probably the public rebelled a little bit,” Berardelli said. “If people don’t think that the problem is being addressed, it gets them angry and it raises public concern, and then when people think it’s actually being addressed, or maybe being addressed too much, they switch their priorities.”

As a result, Casey said there was an “exponential” surge in coverage of climate change, particularly within the last five years.

CLIMATE MATTERS

Some of this growth can also be attributed to increased access to information regarding climate change and its effects.

In 2012, the nonprofit Climate Central launched a program called Climate Matters, offering up weekly reporting materials for meteorologists and journalists to use. At the time, only a dozen TV meteorologists participated in the program — but it was quickly a success.

“Before climate matters, there would have been very little that I could have shown on TV without a tremendous amount of time and effort on my part of compiling data…it just wasn’t possible,” Berardelli said.

Research has since found that when using the materials, viewers were more inclined to believe that climate change is indeed happening, is primarily caused by humans and has detrimental risks.

Now, more than 3,000 meteorologists and journalists in over 200 locations across the U.S. participate in Climate Matters, using weekly materials to better make sense of confusing data for viewers.

Casey, who now works as a meteorologist for Climate Matters, said the use of these materials has allowed other meteorologists to develop “incredible” broadcasts and articles covering climate change.

One tool Casey is currently working on to better assist journalists in their coverage is a climate shift index, which calculates how much of an impact global warming has had on daily temperatures as well as high and low average temperatures across the world. The index provides visual outputs, allowing meteorologists to share already developed images in their broadcasts, saving them time and money.

Casey explained this can help journalists “try to get people to understand that climate change isn’t some nebulous future thing, like climate change is in your backyard right now impacting your temperatures.”

DROWNED OUT

As climate change has become more socially relevant, there is evidence of the issue gaining more attention in the news media overall.

Looking at the New York Times alone, the amount of headlines that feature the phrase “climate change” increased by more than 2,000% between 2010 and 2021. The number of headlines featuring the words “carbon emissions” doubled in the same timeframe. Though, it is worth noting that the appearance of the phrase “global warming” decreased by 20%.

The Fall 2023 Yale Program on Climate Change Communication quarterly survey also found that around half of Americans — 51% — have said they hear global warming discussed in the media at least once a month. Around 28% said they hear global warming is discussed at least once a week, while 8% said they never hear it mentioned in the media.

While there is increasing relevance, the issue does still appear to be drowned out by other topics.

In 2010, only six headlines from The New York Times featured the phrase “climate change.” This jumped to 102 in 2020 and dropped back down to 72 in 2021. While this is massively higher than 14 years ago, it has remained lower than other political and foreign topics like Ukraine and Joe Biden.

INTERCONNECTED REPORTING

Given the prominence of other topics, there comes the issue of determining the best way to increase coverage of climate change.

Meteorologists and scientists appear to all be in agreement that climate change has some influence on beats like politics, healthcare, the economy, food and drugs, sports, and more. Therein, some are suggesting the issue should be further integrated into non-typical climate reporting.

“It covers everything,” Gloninger said. “And no matter what beat you’re on, you should be finding a way to cover it. I mean, it’s hard to help. It’s tied to politics, it’s tied to schools, it’s tied to sports.”

Berardelli admitted that covering the issue can be quite difficult, but said that journalists should seek to “match the moment” by leaning on how “interconnected” climate change is with other issues.

For example, when discussing food scarcity and rising food prices, journalists typically lead with impacts of inflation. These reports can go a step further by pointing to difficulties in producing the food at all due to recent droughts, floods, or heat waves caused by climate change.

Berardelli has seen this type of coverage in action and was thrilled to see reporters “finally telling people what it really means.”

“Things are gonna cost more, and there’s going to be more competition for goods that people rely on,” Berardelli said. “Everything is going to cost more and it’s going to create conflict…it’s going to create power struggles for resources. This is what climate change really is.”

Casey agreed that it is vitally important for Americans to know how climate change is going to impact their lives, their families and their communities. But, not all hope should not be lost when reporting on climate change.

Not only should coverage touch on effects of climate change like droughts, flooding, and warming winters, but it should highlight adaptive behaviors that may help mitigate future impacts.

Casey pointed out that even solutions like increasing green spaces and tree canopy in neighborhoods have been found to improve air quality, reduce crime, and increase mental health.

For her, climate change reporting should help motivate readers and viewers to take action.

“I’d love to see us talk about adaptation measures, and hopefully inspire people to demand more from their city, local, county, state, and national governments to provide this,” she said.

Whether the coverage is focusing on adaptive behaviors or the impacts of climate change themselves, Gloninger has emphasized that it should no longer be up to just meteorologists and environmental journalists to provide impactful reporting.

Instead, reporters in all beats should be looking for out of the box ways to integrate the topic into their work.

“I think really, the only path for climate journalism is making sure that it’s a collaborative collective action,” he said.

“It needs to be for us to make any difference at all in this issue.”

Is abortion a political, healthcare or religious issue?

Originally written for the University of Amsterdam and published on Medium.

With the 2024 general election less than a year away, it is more important than ever for voting Americans to remain educated and informed about various defining issues, such as abortion.

As more Americans have turned to social media platforms to receive news and information, there has been a consistently dropping level of trust in news organizations. In 2022, Pew Research found trust in national news organizations was 61% among American adults — down by around 15 percentage points from 2016.

Not only are Americans becoming concerned with what the press is reporting on, but also with how these issues are being presented. In order for trust to rise again — and for voters to make educated decisions — it is imperative to understand how news organizations frame defining issues.

I sought out to help provide some of this information, specifically looking at the New York Times (NYT) coverage of abortion. Abortion is expected to remain a highly debated topic in the months leading up to the 2024 elections. Politicians are likely to use their stance on the medical procedure as a campaign issue, and some states may continue to pursue legislative restrictions.

ABORTION COVERAGE BY THE NEW YORK TIMES

To establish what framing the NYT current uses when covering abortion, it is important to acknowledge how it may have changed in the last two years — particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

Given this, I analyzed various of articles by text mining the NYT’s publicly accessible API from June 2021, June 2022, and June 2023. This data was collected through Python via JupyterLab, gathering articles featuring the word “abortion”.

While the initial collection was for 100 articles for each month, the text mining resulted in 67 from 2021, 100 from 2022 and 100 from 2023, resulting in 267 articles in total. This was not a complete surprise, given the greater relevance abortion had in the public sphere during the latter two years.

Overall, I found support evidence of three main frames the NYT uses when covering abortion:

Political

Healthcare

Religion

These frames can easily be observed through the specific wording used in various articles, which also illustrate a clear shift between 2021 and 2022 as seen in the word clouds below.

During June 2021, words such as “Catholic”, “bishops”, “church”, “communion” and “religious” were used quite frequently with heavy prominence, as seen in Figure 3.

This may be explained by U.S. Catholic Bishops seeking to bar politicians who identified as Catholic from receiving communion at the time — including President Joe Biden. One can argue that because of this, the religious framing is deeply intertwined politically, however for the purpose of this analysis, it is included as its own individual frame.

The analysis did find evidence of these three frames overlapping. However, a plurality of articles reviewed were categorized under just one. For example, articles collected in June 2022 carried a clear political framing, with words such as “Supreme Court”, “law’, and “ruling” having prominence.

There is also evidence of some articles holding more of a healthcare framing, including keywords such as “medication”, “health”, and “clinic.” These articles were the most likely to overlap with the two other frames when compared side by side.

While this analysis of collecting the most predominantly used words provides key insights into the NYT’s framing of abortion, I sought out to analyze this further to see how much of a difference there can be within the coverage.

After selecting five keywords representing each frame, we can easily see how the major outlet shifted its coverage dramatically.

Out of all the phrases searched for, “Supreme Court” was found the most, appearing a total of 27 unique times out of the 267 articles. This was followed by “ruling” and “laws,” which appeared 19 and 15 times respectively. Meanwhile, the word “doctor” was the least commonly found, only appearing twice between 2021 and 2023.

As seen below, the NYT appeared to impose more of a religious frame on its coverage of abortion in 2021, before drastically shifting gears politically a year later. While there was still a large emphasis on political framing in 2023, it was not as heavy as 2022. One could argue this is evidence of the outlet evening out its coverage, however, articles framed as healthcare or religious issues also continued to drop or stayed even.

Figure 5: Media framing in New York Times abortion coverage by keywords

CAN THIS CHANGE?

As abortion and women’s rights activists have spoken out against the excessive use of political framing, Erin Wager, the director of digital design and development communications for Planned Parenthood’s North Central States, explained it goes deeper than simple wording choices.

“That is by virtue of the landscape that we’re in,” Wager said.

“We’re fighting for basic healthcare in our legislatures and our courts and really, in almost every aspect of the landscape that we’re working in.”

The NYT has seemingly lessened its use of political framing (Figure 5), and Wager acknowledged there are some improvements. But to her, it’s still not enough.

“We are constantly still reminding people that abortion is healthcare, and the headlines don’t always reflect that.”

In order to veer away from political framing, Wager suggested journalists emphasize the personal stories from women who have undergone the procedure. The non-profit Reproductive Freedom For All (NAARL) has released similar recommendations, encouraging news organizations to include a variety of sources — namely medical and personal.

This shift in framing may take some time as Wager revealed she doesn’t believe there is currently any way to completely separate abortion coverage from political framing.

“I’m hopeful that we’ll get to a point, but not in our current landscape now.”

Why it's Lucrative to be a Woman Hater

Originally written for Aarhus University and Danish School of Media and Journalism by Callie Patteson and Wies van der Stroom

Andrew Tate once described himself as “absolutely sexist” and “absolutely a misogynist.” 

Though he didn’t worry about the backlash he would face from making such a statement. 

Instead, he said, “I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away.”

Within the past five years, social media platforms have seen a rise of influencers using online hate to generate reaction, views, engagements and ultimately: income. 

Podcasters and TikTokers like Tate, Sneako, and Myron Gaines appear to have been making a living off of spreading hateful content – much of which is targeted against women. 

Many of these influencers have faced certain restrictions on social media platforms such as account bans. However, their content still appears to thrive with fans sharing videos of their podcasts, using hashtags, connected to their brand, or simply following them on other platforms like YouTube and Rumble. 

The question arises how these controversial influencers generate their income, and what the mechanism behind it is.

OUTRAGE ECONOMY 

Research suggests that controversial content creators thrive on social media platforms due to the concept of outrage economy. 

Outrage economy is rooted in the idea that the ability to generate income is connected to virality. Typically this is understood as moral and emotional language being used in a social media post to become viral.

A 2017 study done by New York University found evidence of this, detailing that the presence of moral or emotional language in a number of tweets, caused an increase of retweets by 20%. The same year, Yale Neuroscientist M.J. Crockett suggested that outrage is the driving force behind the virality and spreadability of certain messages online. 

Based on this, it appears that social media posts using moral or emotional language are more likely to generate outrage. As that happens, outraged users are more likely to reshare the posts with their reaction, spreading the messages with more users and starting the cycle again and again.

This process of spreading content is nothing new to content creators today.

Example of shared video of the Fresh and Fit podcast on TikTok

“Being polarizing is beneficial to anyone on social media, because your haters at the end of the day, they’re writing comments and they’re getting you traction. Your haters are essentially most like fans,” fashion and beauty content creator Malvika Sheth said. 

“That’s sort of how it works because you will get more traction, the more hate you get.” 

Sheth has over 130,000 followers across Instagram, TikTok and YouTube.

Fans and haters working together to generate income for controversial influencers is key to the idea of outrage culture, according to Alison Phipps, a Professor of Sociology in the School of Geography, Politics, and Sociology at Newcastle University. 

There is no doubt in Phipps’ mind that this stream of income is “very lucrative.” 

“This economy also depends on having both fans and ‘haters’ because growth is achieved through controversy and conflict,” she said. 

HOW LUCRATIVE IS IT? 

Despite moderation practices, there is still a clear existence of content from creators like Tate and Gaines on social media platforms. 

While their official accounts have been removed, other accounts — seemingly created by fans of the creators — continue to share their messaging. Often this is seen through uploading clips of separate podcasts and interviews. 

With these posts gaining virality, the disconnected influencers also gain attention. They might not be profiting off the clicks and individual views of these videos themselves, but the virality puts a spotlight on other streams of income for these influencers. 

In the end, these influencers seem to make big bucks.

Myron Gaines, co-host of the Fresh and Fit podcast, on Instagram

Gaines for example, has explained on his Instagram account that he left his government job as a special agent with the Department of Homeland Security to pursue his podcast career.

He wrote that he gave himself an ultimatum: “Keep my save GOV 120k a year job w/ benefits or risk it all on a podcast with less than 10k YouTube subscribers and face uncertainty…”.

In another video on the same account, Gaines explained that he is a real estate investor, owning nine properties which he invested in with, as he calls it, “influencer money”. He has also claimed that he doubled his previous yearly income in 2022.

Gaines and Walter Weekes, co-hosts of The Fresh and Fit Podcast which was seemingly removed from TikTok in August, declined to talk on the matter.

It seems that besides spreading their own ‘ideologically’ driven content, boasting about a high income and its benefits is another part of what these influencers place on their platforms.

They emphasize how being a masculine man also entails generating a lot of income; something that is often connected to not giving up, being a strong man, and focusing on yourself as aspects of being successful in life.

This is something that Sneako, another influencer known for his controversial content, affirms in posts on his Instagram account. One picture showing him on the roof of a seemingly expensive car is joined by the description: “10 years of work = Overnight success”.

Sneako’s post. It is not known whether or not this is actually his car.

Both Gaines and Sneako revealed what they believe their net worth to be during a February 23 episode of the The Ahmad Mahmood Show.

During the podcast, Gaines guessed that his net worth was between $2-3 million due to his real estate and business efforts. He also revealed that in 2022, he made just over $1 million from YouTube and his “other entrepreneurial ventures,” and only needed to pay $36,000 in taxes thanks to “business write-offs, depreciation, cost segregation [and] real estate.”

Sneako admitted that he wasn’t exactly sure what his current net worth is estimated at, but guessed it was around $1 million.

Sneako also failed to respond to requests for comment. 

As for Andrew Tate, he explained during the Pomp Podcast with Anthony Pompliano in 2022 how he made his money, claiming that he made his first $1 million through his webcam business.

Tate and his brother Tristan are currently under investigation as they are suspected of creating an organized crime group exploiting women. It is not clear whether this webcam business had anything to do with that.

Tate explained that the webcam company came about because he had eight girlfriends and asked himself: “What can I do with these hot girls, it’s just an asset right.” While Tate said he wasn’t a millionaire at the time, he claimed girls “assume I’m this big boy, right”. This is in part thanks to social media, which Tate said played a part in girls thinking he was rich and was the reason for them to come and visit him.

In a documentary released by VICE in 2023, journalist Matt Shea went behind the scenes to film Tate in his villa in Romania, where the influencer talks about having 200,000 monthly subscribers for his ‘Hustler University’ in which people will learn “how to make money today.”

To join, subscribers shell out $49.99 every month. If the number of subscribers is accurate, this would mean Hustler University would bring in nearly $10 million monthly alone. It remains unclear how much of that Tate could take home after taxes and other business expenses.

Tate has previously claimed on social media that he has a net worth of approximately $700 million, however he later removed the Twitter post making that claim.

Tate failed to respond to multiple requests for comment regarding his income.

It is important to remember that Tate’s story is somewhat unique, as other misogynistic influencers are not known for generating income through webcam or sex businesses.

Still, by gaining traction online by posting regularly and controversially on various platforms these influencers often make money stemming from advertisements that are based on the amount of attention they get online.

This is something Tate also appears to use in his strategy, claiming that his followers should flood social media with his content to have maximum traction. According to The Guardian, this has made the influencer millions of pounds.

Many creators also use platforms like Rumble and YouTube, which will pay content creators directly for their content depending on how many views it gets.

How much money Gaines, Tate and Sneako actually make annually, remains difficult to say. As many of these content creators boast about their income, it is not entirely responsible to take their statements about their net worth as the truth without additional verification.

ARE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES PROFITING?

As this cycle has become more prevalent with the rise of influencers like Tate and Gaines, there is some debate as to why it has been allowed to continue. 

One could argue that the easiest way to prevent hateful messaging from spreading on platforms is to remove the source post through moderation practices. 

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has claimed that platforms, like TikTok, are refusing to take down controversial, outrage-inducing posts for their own financial gain. 

“Algorithmic amplification, coupled with platforms’ refusal to take action against content that violates their own community standards, are the significant factors driving the epidemic of online hate, misinformation and other malignant behavior we see today,” the British non-profit said. 

CCDH argued that social media companies have a “financial incentive” to under-invest in content moderation and removing content. 

“Tech companies are in the business of driving engagement and maximizing profit, which is related to their failure to properly moderate their platforms,” CCDH said. 

The non-profit specifically pointed to advertising, claiming that platforms amplify the most engaging content and avoid removing content that violates their policies to increase the amount of time users spend online. 

“Social media platforms are designed to amplify the most engaging content,” CCDH continued. 

“Put simply, this means that bad actors learn to ‘game’ the algorithm by producing content that is controversial, divisive, or that creates conflict.” 

TikTok account that contains misogynistic content and promotes a way to make money

TikTok has aggressively come out against this accusation, saying “It is not in our interest for the platform to have content which is violative of our community guidelines.” 

“No business wants to advertise on a platform that’s full of that content,” a spokesperson said. 

The spokesperson insisted the platform has over 40,000 social safety professionals globally working towards keeping TikTok safe for users. 

This is done through a number of factors including AI machine learning that prevents certain videos from being uploaded, human moderation, as well as reports from individual users.

Whether or not social media platforms are inherently keeping this content alive for their own gain, it is apparent that we won’t see it go away anytime soon, Phipps indicated.

She also noted that as long as western society remains in a “far-right revival,” with extreme groups attempting to roll back on women’s rights, LGBT+ rights, migrant rights and more, controversial social media influencers will continue to pursue harmful messaging for their own financial gain.

“These misogynistic influencers and other people who are using hate to build their platforms like to pretend they’re speaking truth to power, but in reality they’re speaking for power as these ideas are in the political ascendant.”

His lack of faith strengthens him

Originally published on Medium January 2, 2020

---

When a company is under fire, from internal or external problems, the person who steps up is the President or Chief Executive Officer. For Scott Long Construction, that is one person, John Scott. During times of trial, some Presidents and CEOs might turn to their mentors, family or spirituality to push them through. But for Scott, he relies on his “lack of faith.”

On a normal work day, the 49-year-old can be found in anywhere from four to eight meetings but sees these as an opportunity to develop and deepen relationships with owners, architects and engineers. These aren’t the only places Scott deepens his relationships with the people he works with.

John Scott

Wanda Beltran, the sales operations manager at Scott Long Construction sees Scott interacting with employees of all levels when doing the simplest thing, getting coffee in the kitchen.

“He asks any employee something, ‘how is your day going’, ‘how about this project, how is that going’?,” She said over the phone. “He starts off a conversation with them in regards to what they are currently working on and how they feel about what they are doing. It’s not like he has to call a meeting with everybody and ask those specific questions — he just asks them on a daily basis.”

To Scott, this simple interaction with his employees is essentially common sense; but admitted he feels like a jerk when he has to walk right by.

“It’s not anything other than the point,” Scott said. “Scott Long Constructions exists for really two main reasons: one to feed the Scott family, two to create an environment where people can experience abundant life. You can’t really have a great environment to work in and not talk to people. The company exists for the people — it doesn’t exist for any other reason.”

Growing up in a Christian household in northern Virginia, Scott knew early on that Jesus would play a strong role in his life. When he was around five years old Scott said what he calls “the magic prayer”, inviting Jesus into his heart with his oldest sister.

“But I think my faith became real,” Scott said in a phone interview, “Became my faith and not my parents faith — when I was in highschool.”

When participating in YoungLife, Scott saw his friends lives be impacted by Jesus and realized that what his parents taught him was real — causing him to fully accept it as his own.

From his parents and through YoungLife, Scott grew up with the model of relational ministry: you become friends with someone and then slowly earn the right to be heard.

By avoiding being “preachy” and instead simply caring for his employees, Scott hopes that Jesus shines through his actions.

“It’s not my job to convert everybody,” He said. “It’s not my goal to convert everybody. But I’m supposed to love people. Love God and love others and there is no struggle there, with anything.”

President and CEO John Scott with his late father, Bruce Scott the founder of Scott Long Construction. Credit: Scott Long Construction

Since taking over the company from his father in 2004, Scott and his coworkers have not experienced any backlash or negative comments about being open with their faith.

Robert Grimes, the Vice President of Scott Long Construction, doesn’t consider himself to be religious but has seen the positive effects of Scott’s faith in partnership with his leadership.

“He’s always very supportive and very positive,” Grimes said. “And encourages people to reach their potential. To me that exemplifies what he believes in…The compassion he shows in a leadership position, at least in my experience, has been a little unusual.”

It is evident that Scott’s compassion does not go unnoticed.

“He really does it [live by his faith],” Beltran said about Scott. “He cares about all the projects that come in here and how everyone is performing on them. He cares about what their likes are, what they appreciate about the job, or anything in the office. He definitely cares about his team. With religion in the office, not everyone is going to have the same faith, but if you live by your religion, and work by that, your faith is going to get you through your day and have a good attitude in life.”

However to Scott, the phrase “living out your faith” is more of a construct of western Christianity.

“It doesn’t make sense,” He said. “You either have faith or you don’t have faith. And faith is the whole point — the word faith means you have doubts, you don’t fully believe. If we have a bad deal, ‘are we going to lose a lot of money?’, ‘are we going to lose a bunch of people?’ or ‘are we going to go out of business?’, all those doubts go through your mind. The real question is, do you have faith that God is going to do what he says he’s gonna do — which is love you and take care of you no matter what?”

Scott sees the western construct of everything will be okay as long as I follow these rules as unbiblical — the only thing biblical being to love God, love other people and God will love you back.

“Living out your faith is an incorrect phrase,” He continued, “Even just a little faith, what Jesus said, is what will move mountains.”

That little faith, the moments where he feels that he is nothing and can do nothing, is where Scott finds his strength.

He described the knowing that your next breath could easily be your last. There is nothing you can do to control it, the only thing giving you the ability to breathe is God’s goodness, mercy, power and grace. If you recognize that, why should you care about anything else?

“It’s nothing I can do but recognize that I am nothing,” Scott said. “When I recognize that he is everything, then I become powerful.”